Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1887-08-05
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Substance Of an Important De-
cision Rendered by the
Commission.
The Payment of Commissions by Con.
meeting Lines Declared to De
Not Obligatory.
Washington telegram.l


on Wednesday,. The most important
was the one in relation to the payment
OF commiss ons by one road to the
agents OF another and connecting road
for sales of through tickets. The
points i'll dispute grew out of the
commissions and anti-commissions
fight between the seaboard trunk
lines and some of their
Western connections. The following
three cases were disposed of in the one
opinion: The Chicag go and Alton Com
pany against the Pennsylvania Com
pany, the same against the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Company, and the Chi
cago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad
Company against the New York Cen
trail and Hudson River Railroad Com
pany. The following synopsis con, aims
the more important points of the opin-
ion, which is very long:
The complaints in these cases were founded
upon the third section of the act to regulate
commerce, and charge violations of thnt Sec
! ton by the defendant companies in refusing
certain facilities for receiving forwarding, and
delivering pnssengers to compliments lines.
being afforded to other and competitive compa-
MES, give, the compliments allege, undue and
The material facts found by the commission are
recited at length i'll the opinion. They show
that for several years prior to the time
effect, sut stant:ally all the railroad COM
| panies OF the country, including the COM
plainants and defendants. paid commissions
The defendant companies and some others Tor
about two years have made earnest EFFORTS to
abate the practice of paying commissions
About month before the oct to regulate com.
MERGE became operative the defendant com.
| panies took steps TO procure agreements With
1ne1r eonneGtng companies to abolish the COM
| view they sent printed circulars on or about
| March Is last to their connecting companies.
expressing their willingness to continue to act
and stating the nature of the agreement.
The circular Of the defendant Companies
%sat Of soaafon the
to its agents. The complainant companies re-
fused to enter into the agreement proposed.
after April last, refused to sell through tick.
cts over the complainants' roads from Chicago
and St. Louis to Kansas City, and still refuse,
comglainants aver that the defendants refuse
to afford them reasonable. proper, and equal
facilities tor receiving, forwarding. and deliy-
competing roads in contravention of the pro-
visions of the act to regulate commerce.
me dsf. ndsnts deny That they have violated
! have the exclusive right to control their agents.
to fix the amount Of their compensation, and to
! pay themselves; that the payment Of commits
| sions by other companies is demoralzing to
their agents, and often leads to determinations
70 passengers tor roads paying large commits
| agent and the passenger; that commissions
consume considerable percentage of the rev.
enue from the sale OF through tickets; that
| on basis OF equality, and passengers select
their own routes unintuenced by agents having
IN interest in the form of commission in per.
suadng them to choose some particular route.
The ofenses Of which the commission has
cognizence are anything done omitted to be
act to regulate commerce. Railroad corpora
tions in the States are the creations of the State
governments aud their powers and duties are
defined by their charters or by general laws
The act does not make it the duty OF State rail-
reads to organize and operate through lines Of
transportation consisting of separate roads
owned by different companies The orsanza-
ton of such lines is left under the act to the
voluntary action Of railroad companies, as it ex-
listed previously. The law in this instance does
not in terms require one railroad company to
sell through tickets over the road of another rail-
road company. In the absence OF statutory au-
thority ono railroad company can only sell
tickets and check baggage over the road Of an-
other railroad company by agreement. BY
agreement between two companies through
tickets, very properly, are sold and used over
connecting lines as u convenience Of passenger
traffic and an inducement for patronage. Such
tickets very evidently are a great convenience
to travellers and perhaps to connecting roads
but they are a part OF the voluntary arrange
ments for business purposes, like joint tariffs,
interchange of cars and common use of depots
1t being therefore, under our statute, matter
OF mutual agreement whether coupon or
through tickets shall be sold by railroad COM
pany over roads of ether compunies
it follows that the form CT such tickets
and the manner of their sale are also matters
of agreement by the companies interested II
companies can agree upon their tariffs. the
form OF their tickets, and how they shall DO
sold they have the right to do so. and by such
agreement become Interstate carriers but il
they cannot agree the act does not undertake
to coerce them to do business together upon
terms that may be justly Objectionable or in
RlyEtS ,of L.
for these purposes but assuming, for the sake
of argument, that they may be deemed "facili-
ties" for the receiving forwarding, and deliver
ing of passengers to connecting lines. carriers
are only required to afford reasonable, proper
and equal facilities. They are not required to
equal facilities.
THIS presents the question whether the pay
ment OF commissions is in itself, or rs Incl
able and proper within the purview OF the
statute. The facility. of through tickets is
equally offered to all, anu may be enjoyed
the tickets should charge q commission it
would doubtless be regarded an imposition,
and, therefore, unreasonable and improper.
These commissions are gratuities to induce
special efforts for the company paying them
II the statute do not give one company au-
thority to subsidize the agents VI another COM
pany. and if the practice is injurious in its
effects it certainly cannot be reasonable and
proper.
For the proper government of their own sub
ordinates the defendant companies have forbid
den their agents to receive commissions from
other companies, AMI directed them not to sell
over roads of companies that refuse to recog-
nize this cooperative authority, but insist on
substituting the agents. In these directions the
defendants have not transcribed their reason
able rights. One person or corporation has no
right to interfere with the emp'oyes of another
and the statute does not disturb this old and
sound principle.
The defendants might rest upon their right to
control the official conduct of their own agents,
nut they go further and show by evidence tho
practical effects of commissions, and that their
natural and usual tendencies are to q variety of
abuses
The opinion then quotes the testi-
mony of an officer of the Pennsylvania
Railroad and others to the effect that
commissions were used to corrupt
agents to sell through tickets over the
commission-paying lines in preference
to others; that these commissions,
amounting in the average to % per
cent. of the value of the tickets, were
frequently divided with the purchaser,
thereby making discrimination in
rates in favor of the company which
+tot %,